Find Nearby Plumbers In Pembroke Pines, Florida

All three reviews are severely negative and date from 2012–2015, making them over 8 years old and not representative of current operations. Pricing issues are consistently cited across all reviews, with bait-and-switch tactics (quote of $750 raised to $950), overcharging ($375 for 1 hour), and customer dissatisfaction with work quality. One review explicitly mentions unprofessional behavior (hanging up during dispute). Project completion is questionable, with one customer unable to use hot water after installation. The extreme age of these reviews and lack of recent data make any WW Score calculation unreliable.

• CRITICAL: All reviews are 8+ years old (2012–2015). No recent reviews available to assess current business practices.
• Consistent pattern of pricing complaints across all reviews suggests systemic pricing issues or bait-and-switch practices.
• One review explicitly documents unprofessional behavior (hanging up on customer).
• Work quality concerns noted (non-functional hot water after installation).
• Insufficient recent data to calculate a reliable WW Score.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient recent data (all reviews are 8+ years old) and only 3 total reviews. Any score would be based on outdated information and should not be used for current decision-making.

Both reviews explicitly praise reliability, efficiency, fast response, and problem-solving ability (camera diagnosis of damaged pipe). Project completion is affirmed through successful resolution of issues that other plumbers could not fix. Professionalism is evidenced by responsiveness and service quality. However, with only 2 reviews total, all scores carry LIMITED confidence and cannot support a reliable overall WW Score calculation per Step 4 guidelines.

• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — WW Score calculation requires minimum 3 reviews for reliability
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with enthusiastic language but limited specific detail about pricing, timeline, or follow-up service
• Review dates span nearly 1 year apart (Feb 2023 to Dec 2023); no recent data from past 3 months
• No explicit mention of pricing/value in either review — cannot assess Price Friendly dimension

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2). Individual dimension scores are based on LIMITED evidence and should not be used for contractor selection decisions without additional reviews.

Both reviews speak positively to professionalism, noting quick response times, friendliness, cleanliness, and efficient work. Project completion is implied in both cases — fixtures installed, a leak fixed, and a water heater installed — though neither review explicitly details follow-through or callbacks. Workmanship quality is praised in general terms ('great work,' 'done right') but lacks specific technical detail, keeping the experience score conservative. Pricing is entirely absent from both reviews, making that dimension unscoreable. With only two reviews total, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 2 reviews provided — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Both reviews are generic in praise with limited specifics; confidence in all scored dimensions is LOW due to minimal sample size.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — this dimension cannot be evaluated.
• Both reviews are from May 2023, which is now over 12 months old depending on current date — recency should be considered when interpreting these results.
• Small sample size makes it impossible to detect patterns or rule out selection bias in which reviews were submitted.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and should be considered highly unreliable — no WW Score has been calculated, and all dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence at best.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for reliable scoring. Additionally, the two reviews are contradictory (1-star vs 5-star) and separated by nearly 5 years, making it impossible to establish a trustworthy baseline. The older 2019 review cannot be weighted equally with the recent 2024 review.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews provided — minimum 3 required for reliable WW Score calculation
• EXTREME CONTRADICTION: One 1-star review alleging fraud and poor workmanship vs. one 5-star review praising professionalism and quality. These reviews describe fundamentally different service experiences and may indicate either: (a) significant service quality inconsistency, (b) fake reviews, or (c) different service types/contractors
• RECENCY ISSUE: The positive 5-star review is from September 2019 (nearly 5 years old). The negative 1-star review is from January 2024 (current). Recent data heavily contradicts older data
• SEVERE ALLEGATIONS: The 2024 review contains serious accusations of intentional fraud, deliberate concealment of incomplete work, and damage to customer property. These are not minor complaints but allegations of criminal conduct
• INSUFFICIENT DIMENSION COVERAGE: Even if 2 reviews were adequate, neither review provides clear, explicit mentions of pricing, professionalism, project completion, or experience that meet the evidence standard required by scoring rules

This score cannot be calculated or trusted. With only 2 contradictory reviews separated by 5 years, and serious fraud allegations in the most recent review, no reliable WW Score can be established. Additional recent reviews are essential before any scoring recommendation can be made.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was analyzed. The single review explicitly criticizes responsiveness and communication (professionalism dimension), citing inability to reach anyone by phone despite advertised 24/7 service. No data exists for pricing, project completion, or experience dimensions. A reliable WW Score requires a minimum of 3 reviews.

• Only 1 review provided — insufficient for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2016 (8+ years old) — recency is a concern
• No information on pricing, project completion, or technical experience
• Single negative review on responsiveness cannot be generalized

This score cannot be calculated reliably with only one review; a minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a trustworthy WW Score.

This single review paints a deeply negative picture across multiple dimensions. The installation team failed to complete the job correctly, leaving the customer without hot water for at least 7 days — a critical project completion failure. The technicians demonstrated poor technical problem-solving by misdiagnosing the issue as a breaker problem, which an independent electrician later disputed, pointing to installer error. Professionalism was severely lacking as the plumbers never returned after leaving the job incomplete, and the contractor was unresponsive despite multiple contact attempts. No pricing information was mentioned, so that dimension cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• This is a single 1-star review; no positive reviews exist to balance the assessment. All scores are based on one data point and should be treated with extreme caution.
• The review describes a potentially serious workmanship liability: the installer may have caused an electrical fault during a water heater installation, which was then abandoned without resolution.
• Contractor non-responsiveness after a failed installation is a significant red flag for project completion and professionalism.

This score report is based on a single review and should not be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's overall performance — however, the severity of the described incident warrants serious caution for prospective customers.